Liberaltarianism’s New Groove 2
Simply put, if congressional Democrats manage to acquiesce in a plan that spends $700 billion on a bailout while doing nothing for average working people and giving the taxpayer virtually no upside in a way that guarantees that even electoral victory would give an Obama administration no resources with which to implement a progressive domestic agenda in 2009 then everyone’s going to have to give serious consideration to becoming a pretty hard-core libertarian.
It’d be one thing for a bunch of conservative politicians to ram a terrible policy through. Then we could say “well, if some progressives win the next election things will be different.” But if this comes through an allegedly progressive congress then the whole enterprise starts looking pretty hollow.
I would heh, indeed that, but there’s a big challenge pointing the other way: Libertarians need to ask themselves to what extent limited-government advocacy simply provides, in the real world of practical politics, fine-sounding rhetorical justification for pro-corporate, as opposed to pro-market, policy. I know an awful lot of professional libertarians, and the ones I’ve met genuinely abhor government intervention on behalf of corporations. The thing is, they don’t themselves have any power, any more than progressive activists do. It’s a fair argument that the fate of libertarian advocacy has been to selectively justify GOP programs allowing "the market" to deliver rewards to the best-connected billionaires and corporations, and punishments to ordinary workers and consumers. (Years ago, Gene Healy suggested in conversation that this was Michael Lind’s argument about Cato et al in Up From Conservatism: the genuinely libertarian institutions made their sincerely laissez-faire arguments; the corporate elites behind the GOP took the arguments that benefited themselves and ignored the rest.) The speed with which a John McCain moves from declaring himself "fundamentally a deregulator" to endorsing a taxpayer-funded golden parachute for the entire finance sector gives the game away. Genuine libertarians won’t endorse the bailout. What genuine libertarians think simply won’t factor into the decision.
My arguments about the Iraq War included that one is responsible for the genuinely foreseeable consequences of one’s policies. It didn’t matter that advocates of "liberating" Iraq did not hope to see a guerrilla war, ethnic strife, massive fratricide and 15% of Iraq’s population in diaspora. These things were predictible, and therefore fairly the fault of hawks regardless of their intentions. The question is whether the same standard applies to professional libertarianism in the current economic circumstance.
Still, Matt isn’t wrong. This isn’t just a Democratic Congress – it’s a Democratic Congress that owes its existence to specifically progressive activism. On some level it’s not fair that, since liberalism has a handle on some genuine levers of power and libertarianism does not, liberalism bears more responsibility for whatever happens next: Nancy Pelosi just has more capacity for action than Ron Paul. But as Matt points out, liberals do have genuine power here, and their leaders really will expose their enterprise as a fraud if they roll over for the bailout.
The question is, then what?
Comment by Jason Kuznicki —
September 21, 2008 @ 10:14 am
My arguments about the Iraq War included that one is responsible for the genuinely foreseeable consequences of one’s policies. It didn’t matter that advocates of “liberating” Iraq did not hope to see a guerrilla war, ethnic strife, massive fratricide and 15% of Iraq’s population in diaspora. These things were predictable, and therefore fairly the fault of hawks regardless of their intentions. The question is whether the same standard applies to professional libertarianism in the current economic circumstance.
So what are we supposed to do? Would we be better off not making the case for genuine libertarianism? What else should we advocate, if not this?
Comment by Jim Henley —
September 21, 2008 @ 10:18 am
Wait, you want answers? Seriously, Jason, in my opinion, you’re asking the mother of all unanswered questions right now.
Comment by Walter —
September 21, 2008 @ 10:30 am
The consequences of electing a progressive coalition to congress are more predictable than the consequences of a foreign war. Those people were in power in the not so distant past, too.
Comment by Hal —
September 21, 2008 @ 10:35 am
WRT to Matt’s point. Again, I agree. What’s the point of having a progressive controlled congress if they can’t do anything. But on the other hand, what progressive congress would that be? I mean, I keep hearing people characterize it that way, but I can’t see any evidence for it. Maybe it’s just the case that we have a bunch of people who slid in on luck, given the actions of *some* progressives who worked really hard. Now they’re just your every day corporate friendly democrats who despise or at best ignore progressives.
I think if you find something walking, quacking, acting like a duck and is about the same size and shape as a duck, you have a slim reed to base your assertion that it’s an elephant.
And anyways, it seems pretty amazing to keep going back to the well of the 2006 election, which was in actuality 400+ elections – at least for the house – and frame it as “the progressive mandate” or something.
Seems a lot of pain, suffering and perhaps unwarranted criticism is based entirely on this fantasy.
Comment by Jason Kuznicki —
September 21, 2008 @ 11:41 am
I actually don’t find my question all that pertinent. In fact, I think it’s kind of silly, which is why I asked it.
Why is it that only libertarians are being asked to stop arguing for what they believe in — that is, real free markets, and no corporate welfare — while everyone else can argue for whatever they want? Why is it that our position is supposed to be uniquely toxic?
At the very least, asking me to argue for… something else, whatever it is… would be asking me to become a hypocrite. Also, it’s rather defeatist to give up on unadulterated libertarianism at the very moment when we seem (maybe) to be winning influence on the American left. Why quit when our ideas are more salient than ever, and when a whole new group of people are realizing their relevance?
Now if this is about balancing the message properly, about choosing which aspects of libertarianism to stress, I will happily rebalance. I’m just not about to argue for (fill in the blank with whatever) when libertarianism is what I happen to believe in.
Comment by Jim Henley —
September 21, 2008 @ 11:57 am
What????
That’s a bizarre misprision of everything I’ve written this weekend. In this very post I endorse Matt’s argument that progressivism itself is on the brink of being revealed as a fraudulent enterprise. And you imagine that I’m somehow telling libertarians and only libertarians to STFU?
Not remotely. I wouldn’t ask you to argue for something you don’t believe in. I might well ask you to believe something else, though. That’s called advocacy.
For instance, if I conclude that “real free markets, and no corporate welfare” are a structural impossibility, then it’s the belief I’d challenge, not arguing for it per se.
Comment by Jason Kuznicki —
September 21, 2008 @ 12:03 pm
Well, I dunno. I’ve mostly agreed with everything you’ve written on the subject, but I still find this bit troubling:
If arguing for free markets always has this predictable consequence, then it would certainly seem that you are telling libertarians to shut up. Progressives are allowed (and even expected) to make the case against corporate welfare. But not us. This does seem strange to me.
Comment by Jim Henley —
September 21, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
Jason, let me clarify: IF arguing for free markets always has this predictable consequence, I’m telling libertarians not to be libertarians. “Change your mind!” is not the same injunction as “Shut up!” We urge people to change their minds all the time.
I’m not convinced that libertarian advocacy does “always have this predictable consequence.” But if it does, it’s a reason to consider libertarianism a wrongheaded project.
AT THE SAME TIME, there are reasons, articulated by Matt (and me a few hours ahead of him), to consider progressivism to be proven just as wrongheaded by this moment.
Comment by Jason Kuznicki —
September 21, 2008 @ 12:20 pm
Fair enough. I’m certainly familiar with the liberal argument that even well-intentioned free-marketers are at best only useful idiots for the corporatist elite. I just find it troubling that buying into this idea may turn out to be part of the liberaltarian project.
Comment by Walt —
September 21, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
What if we compromise in the middle, Jason, and agree as well that even well-intentioned government officials are at best useful idiots for the corporatist elite?
Comment by Thoreau —
September 21, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
Jim-
So, say somebody consistently argues for a more market-based economy, and argues for this across the board in a consistent manner. Say that this person is then selectively quoted, with certain economic and political elites citing their arguments in favor of tax cuts and against various regulations, but ignoring arguments against subsidies and bailouts. Is it the fault of the person who was selectively quoted?
I’m sure that a corporate lobbyist spin doctor could find a way to selectively quote even Kevin Carson.
If a person’s sincere, informed opinion is that a free market economy is more just and more conducive to greater overall prosperity for all, then I don’t think we can fault him for being selectively quoted. Moreover, I don’t know that any of what we’re seeing really refutes that position.
However, I would grant that an economic policy analyst whose research is selectively applied might do well to distance himself from those who selectively quote him, and find some new friends and donors. If a libertarian think tank finds that its donors only cite a certain fraction of what they produce, and use that selected fraction to justify things that run contrary to the broader overall point of free market economics, then perhaps the think tank should, well, think about the problem.
Comment by Jason Kuznicki —
September 21, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
What if we compromise in the middle, Jason, and agree as well that even well-intentioned government officials are at best useful idiots for the corporatist elite?
I’ve agreed with that all along. I just wonder — if you read the libertarian canon, read authors like Friedman and Mises, you always find them worrying that corporate power will co-opt the state and supplant the free market. How much plainer does it need to be said?
Comment by Thoreau —
September 21, 2008 @ 1:20 pm
So, I guess what I’m trying to say is that the problem is not arguing for free markets. Kevin Carson and his friends argue for free markets, and I don’t see any corporate lobbyists trotting him out as a pet intellectual. Advocacy for free markets comes in many forms, and doing it as the kept intellectual of political and economic elites has predictable consequences that might not attach to, say, the work of the Institute for Justice (which primarily files lawsuits on behalf of small businesses).
Comment by Joe Strummer —
September 21, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
Look, I argue for free markets. The problem isn’t advocacy of free markets. The problem is the libertarian movement.
As I’ve said on this blog in the comments sections a number of times before, the libertarian movement is, for various reasons, an adjunct of the corporatist conservative movement that has dominated American politics for the past 28 years.
Look, if you like working for Cato, then work for Cato. I have many friends who work for Cato. They enjoy their work, and I don’t begrudge them anything, anymore than I begrudge my libertarian friends who work for the IRS.
But understand that you haven’t “advanced freedom” one fucking inch in the past 30 years. Ok?
Cato and the other libertarian organizations out there don’t exist to change policy. They exist to provide a service to donors – make them feel as though they are contributing to a free society – and they provide good jobs that can generate interesting work for smart libertarian-oriented people. That’s not an altogether bad thing.
But it is not advancing a free society, or, as some like to say in a half-serious way, serving as the center of the revolution.
Comment by Joe Strummer —
September 21, 2008 @ 2:12 pm
The question is, then what?
The whole problem is “then what”? Then what, what? If you see politics as a thing to be worked upon, then you are necessarily in the business of making the kind of compromises that result in socializing a couple trillion in risk for the rich.
Set up a blog, write some interesting commentary, write poetry, hang out with your dogs, raise your kids. In short, be a Jim Henley.
Comment by max —
September 21, 2008 @ 2:20 pm
On some level it’s not fair that, since liberalism has a handle on some genuine levers of power and libertarianism does not, liberalism bears more responsibility for whatever happens next: Nancy Pelosi just has more capacity for action than Ron Paul. But as Matt points out, liberals do have genuine power here, and their leaders really will expose their enterprise as a fraud if they roll over for the bailout.
What I think this amounts to, is that actual libertarians (in the Ron Paul vein) have to throw the McArdles of the world overboard. Likewise, progressive types have to throw the Pollacks of the world overboard. Etc.
I don’t know if there are enough conservatives left to throw the Banana Republicans overboard.
The basic problem, as I see it, is that the connected people in DC/New York are willing to talk a good game to their fellow ideologists of whatever stripe, but in practice they operate almost solely from the narrowest possible self-interest, even if that means abandoning their professed ideology in practice.
So from that POV, the reaction to 911 amounts to save US (us being the group mentioned above) regardless of the cost to anyone else in the country. The bailouts in this context amount to exactly the same thing. ‘Save US, fuck YOU!’
max
['Occam's razor applies here.']
Comment by Joe Strummer —
September 21, 2008 @ 2:52 pm
What I think this amounts to, is that actual libertarians (in the Ron Paul vein) have to throw the McArdles of the world overboard. Likewise, progressive types have to throw the Pollacks of the world overboard. Etc.
As much as I would like to “throw the McArdles of the world overboard”, I would at least like to say to the world, “I am a libertarian” without that word being linked to the kind of corporatist “market-based” politics of a Megan McArdle. But, as it is, the term “libertarian” has been so debased that I don’t think it means what I think it means anymore.
Futilitarian is a term I saw recently, and liked.
One of my favorite professors, Dave Schmidtz, was once asked what he was, in political terms. And he gave this really thoughtful answer (which at the time I misunderstood as “squishiness”) which amounted to this:
if you think your perspective can be boiled down into a single label, then you don’t give yourself nearly enough credit. Or, your perspective isn’t sufficiently interesting for anyone to care.
Comment by Nell —
September 21, 2008 @ 3:23 pm
Cheesiskrighstonastick. My last two laborious tries at a comment were eaten, so I’m ditching the link. I’ll try again:
“What, then?” is a question that, in one way of looking at it, we have about six days to answer.
To get a sense of what kind of weak tea the most fire-breathing of the Democrats in Congress are considering, take a look at the letter Matt Stoller says was written by a member of the House (my money’s on David Obey or Barney Frank). It’s at openleft.com
For those who won’t go there, the menu of deals on offer appears to be:
1. Pelosi: Some bridge-building money.
2. House Judiciary: Some mortgage relief for middle-class homeowners.
3. Waxman: CEO compensation caps.
4. Wild-eyed radicals in backroom ruminating: Provisions of the anti-predatory-lending bill now stalled inthe Senate.
5. Wild-eyed radicals for blog consumption: Provisions of the bankruptcy “reform” passed a few years ago applied to the big players.
Comment by hornshiver —
September 21, 2008 @ 4:14 pm
Ron Paul behaves like a fascist
Comment by Idi Amin's Last Meal —
September 21, 2008 @ 6:49 pm
Cato is the PRI.
Viva la revolucion institucional!
Comment by joe from Lowell —
September 21, 2008 @ 8:26 pm
Nell, you left out the most important part of what the Democrats are insisting on: independent oversight.
Do you realize that this bill would allow the Secretary of the Treasury to basically buy whatever he wants for whatever he wants to spend, and none of his actions are subject to review even in a court of law?
Comment by Micha Ghertner —
September 22, 2008 @ 12:16 am
For what it’s worth, I heard that Jonah Goldberg linked approvingly to Roderick Long’s recent AotP post. Make of that what you will.
Comment by mnuez —
September 22, 2008 @ 6:38 am
The Libertarian masses are nothing but a bunch of useful idiots. They rage on and on about libertarian subjects of all sorts but the ONLY ones that ever actually get implemented are those that make the rich even richer. They blab on about invasions of privacy, legalizing marijuana and ending the inheritance tax and they… end the inheritance tax. The people who fund the various influential libertarian “think tanks” and whatnot are the Republican Elite who know that the libertarian message of facepainted “freedom!” resonates well with the plebiscite but will result in no actual freedom… save the freedom to be able to allow said plebeians to suffer and die without a dime’s worth of assistance from their trust funds.
Of course this isn’t solely a libertarian issue (the Republican Party as a WHOLE never gave their “social conservatives anything at all save a few insincere claims of “deep faith” all the while they robbed them of the simple human right to be able to see a doctor without fear of foreclosure) but this is one of those sights popular among some of the more intelligent libertarians so it’s worth reminding people to not allow themselves to be stepping stools for the increased greed and comfort of the already greedy and comfortable.
mnuez
Comment by Jason Kuznicki —
September 22, 2008 @ 6:58 am
It’s puzzling. For years, Cato has been publishing books and studies highly critical of the power grabs of the Bush administration. Indeed, it would be hard to find a group more critical: on spending, on civil liberties, on foreign policy. Constantly.
One wonders what it would take to make these commenters happy.
Comment by Joe Strummer —
September 22, 2008 @ 11:22 am
One wonders what it would take to make these commenters happy.
If Cato was bought out by Heritage, that would be a good start.
Comment by jason hurley —
September 22, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
wouldn’t that make us useless idiots? listen, it’s a catagorical imperitave, period. you either adhere to the constitution, consider private property rights sacred, and genuinely believe in limited government power, or you don’t. if you’re not a libertarian, to one degree or another, you’re a socialist. i want marijuana legalized. i don’t care what gays do behind closed doors. i think our foreign policy is a joke, and i think the inheritance tax is a joke too. but how is my fault that finger wagging moralizers on the republican side of the politburo hijack my authentic ideology to suite their own bigoted or plutocratic needs? does that make my beliefs any less valid? republicans are the worst, waxing adam smith during the bull market but turning into bleeding heart welfare liberals when those banks act like 5 year olds and burn their fingers on the hot stove of stupidity. let them burn. let them learn.